Theists, if a charlatan existed...

epronovost said:

How do you handle the fact that the Bible cosmology is demonstrably false?

Click to expand...

This is demonstrably false cosmology to you:

1) Linear time began with the creation of the universe

2) Within darkness, great light appeared

3) Heavenly bodies were formed

4) The Universe stretched wide and continues to expand/stretch today

Which university(s) have you attended?!

A Vestigial Mote said:

You still don't get it at all. Not at all. It is extremely frustrating. I WAS NOT advocating for the scenario posed in my first paragraph at all. NOT AT ALL. Understand that. I think it about as likely as the idea that God exists... which is to say, basically zero chance. I was merely pointing out the stupidity of your original attempt at a dichotomy (once again), by demonstrating that another possibility exists that isn't the other two. In a true dichotomy, there are only the two options presented, and there can not even be the possibility of a third. I gave you a third, therefore were in error. Failure. Abject and complete. Failure.

I admit I don't know. You don't. That's the difference. And it's a HUGE one.

Click to expand...

I DO admit the possibility that there is more than a dichotomy, so let's consider again:

Resolved: Either known biological creatures were designed by an intelligence at some level (like a deist God setting up the blocks for evolution) or they weren't.

AVM's claim: "There's something that isn't quite sentient that didn't quite design creatures, by yet unknown, mysterious, natural processes, and isn't quite intelligent design and isn't quite unintelligent design."

Should we take this to a debate thread? I believe I won this debate already, several times.

BilliardsBall said:

AVM's claim: "There's something that isn't quite sentient that didn't quite design creatures, by yet unknown, mysterious, natural processes, and isn't quite intelligent design and isn't quite unintelligent design."

Click to expand...

How many times do I have to tell you that I DIDN'T MAKE THIS CLAIM? All I did was point it out as another possibility that breaks the idea that ID versus Abiogenesis is a true dichotomy (and yes, I understand that you have explained that you know this isn't a dichotomy).

In the end, I'm not making any claim to knowledge about the origins of life in the universe. I leave that to people who want to pretend they have a clue. All I know is that we won't have anything even approaching "knowledge" on the topic until we have sufficient evidence after having done sufficient investigation of ACTUAL/REAL circumstances.

BilliardsBall said:

This is demonstrably false cosmology to you:

1) Linear time began with the creation of the universe

2) Within darkness, great light appeared

3) Heavenly bodies were formed

4) The Universe stretched wide and continues to expand/stretch today

Which university(s) have you attended?!

Click to expand...

Well the creation didn't happened in 7 days. There was no water at the creation of the universe. Light and darkness do not precede the stars. Plants aren't more ancient than animals, etc.

I have attended a university that doesn't teach to its student that oversimplifying processes than cherry picking texts to draw equivalence and than declare that both are the same even though they absolutely are not.

Even in your bullet point, you place events in disorder (though I'm not sure if the points were supposed to be chronological).

A Vestigial Mote said:

How many times do I have to tell you that I DIDN'T MAKE THIS CLAIM? All I did was point it out as another possibility that breaks the idea that ID versus Abiogenesis is a true dichotomy (and yes, I understand that you have explained that you know this isn't a dichotomy).

In the end, I'm not making any claim to knowledge about the origins of life in the universe. I leave that to people who want to pretend they have a clue. All I know is that we won't have anything even approaching "knowledge" on the topic until we have sufficient evidence after having done sufficient investigation of ACTUAL/REAL circumstances.

Click to expand...

I'm able to agree with you, and as a gedanken, I'm sure you agree that either God created organic life or organic life arose from natural processes.

It's the whole universe's dichotomy that is more problematic for you, I believe.

epronovost said:

Well the creation didn't happened in 7 days. There was no water at the creation of the universe. Light and darkness do not precede the stars. Plants aren't more ancient than animals, etc.

I have attended a university that doesn't teach to its student that oversimplifying processes than cherry picking texts to draw equivalence and than declare that both are the same even though they absolutely are not.

Even in your bullet point, you place events in disorder (though I'm not sure if the points were supposed to be chronological).

Click to expand...

Can I address your university's falsehoods? You made four statements, two of them are obviously unscientific, two of them are plausibly untrue if you're open to alternatives.

BilliardsBall said:

I'm able to agree with you, and as a gedanken, I'm sure you agree that either God created organic life or organic life arose from natural processes.

Click to expand...

This is precisely what I do not agree with, and is the same sort of mistake you keep on making. You shouldn't agree to this as a true dichotomy either if you have a shred of wit about you. And here are a few examples as to why this is simply crap (and please DO NOT attribute me with believing any of this garbage):

1. We find that "God" exists, but also that God is actually part of "natural processes." Now there is no difference between the two ends of what you propose as a "dichotomy".
2. We discover it isn't "God" who did the creating, but the child of a grandly powerful race of creatures who do not conform to anything we label "organic" or "biological" within our universe. They exist outside our universe, on a separate plane of existence, and are simply able to create with their thoughts. We are the child's science-class experiment, for which he is, subsequently, receiving an "F." (I blame you @BilliardsBall)
3. We discover that "organic life" arose from a one-time event that can never actually occur again. It is, therefore deemed an "unnatural process," because it does not conform to any of the rules we can witness/test/measure "nature" abiding by within our universe.

BilliardsBall said:

It's the whole universe's dichotomy that is more problematic for you, I believe.

Click to expand...

It is use of your imagination that is more problematic for you, I believe.

BilliardsBall said:

Can I address your university's falsehoods? You made four statements, two of them are obviously unscientific, two of them are plausibly untrue if you're open to alternatives.

Click to expand...

Which statement can you demonstrate are incorrect and which ones can you twist enough to fit your worldview?

9-10ths_Penguin said:

What else would we see in a false religion?

Click to expand...

False religions exist because of a truth religion exists which saves. If a religion doesn't save, it doesn't concern humans and thus can be ignored. A religion saves on the other hand requires popularity under the "saved" camp. For example, if your religion dogma says that "those who murdered a human will be saved", then among the 7 billion humans in today's world, only a few murderers are saved. Then your god achieved nothing but saved only tens out of the 7 billion.

That said. Truth religion is the one tried once and hit once. False religions are those tried many times but hit once for their popularity.

Now guess who is who.

A Vestigial Mote said:

This is precisely what I do not agree with, and is the same sort of mistake you keep on making. You shouldn't agree to this as a true dichotomy either if you have a shred of wit about you. And here are a few examples as to why this is simply crap (and please DO NOT attribute me with believing any of this garbage):

1. We find that "God" exists, but also that God is actually part of "natural processes." Now there is no difference between the two ends of what you propose as a "dichotomy".
2. We discover it isn't "God" who did the creating, but the child of a grandly powerful race of creatures who do not conform to anything we label "organic" or "biological" within our universe. They exist outside our universe, on a separate plane of existence, and are simply able to create with their thoughts. We are the child's science-class experiment, for which he is, subsequently, receiving an "F." (I blame you @BilliardsBall)
3. We discover that "organic life" arose from a one-time event that can never actually occur again. It is, therefore deemed an "unnatural process," because it does not conform to any of the rules we can witness/test/measure "nature" abiding by within our universe.

It is use of your imagination that is more problematic for you, I believe.

Click to expand...

1 above - An active creator or a deist god of natural law, either one, though you've described the latter above, is a "god".

2 above - These creatures you speak of, who can supersede universal natural laws here, are effectively "gods", and intelligent if childish designers (you've described a fun King novel above, "Under the Dome"!

3 above - You have perfectly described an unknown anomaly, that is still a process with zero "god"

Thus you have "god" or "no god", a dichotomy that even your broad powers of imagination (I sincerely admire your creativity above, by the way, even as you insult mine) cannot supersede.

I'm not hear to browbeat you, merely to point out that many vital Bible doctrines, including Creation and the origin of organic life, are dichotomous and therefore simple to comprehend, and are not "open to thousands of interpretations by many different religious sects".

Further, it remains a peculiar notion--one described in the Bible as abiding, prevalent and SPIRITUAL in root--that skeptics impugn believers in a rude and unneeded fashion. Speaking modestly, I have a keen imagination and a broad, quick mind, with a strong memory and high problem-solving ability. I CAN imagine that there IS a third alternative to my proposed dichotomy--you are not the first skeptic and you will not be the last to challenge me that a third exists without being able to demonstrate same!

With pleasure, I would debate this resolution anywhere you wish, publicly or privately:

Resolved: Since the condition "a god exists in or outside this universe" has only one true and one false possibility, life was begun either by a god(s) or by zero gods.

epronovost said:

Which statement can you demonstrate are incorrect and which ones can you twist enough to fit your worldview?

Click to expand...

You foolishly wrote some things no university, secular or religious, teaches:

Well the creation didn't happened in 7 days. There was no water at the creation of the universe. Light and darkness do not precede the stars. Plants aren't more ancient than animals, etc.

You seem blithely unaware of all scientific consensus and partial scientific consensus on the above. For example:

"Plants aren't more ancient than animals"

Would a billion years of evolution be helpful to your understanding here?

BilliardsBall said:

Thus you have "god" or "no god", a dichotomy that even your broad powers of imagination (I sincerely admire your creativity above, by the way, even as you insult mine) cannot supersede.

Click to expand...

Holy freaking crap. I swear dealing with people capable of believing things base only in religion is like smashing your brain into a brick wall and sliding it along it until it is nothing but a smear of gray matter behind you.

I ALREADY ACKNOWLEDGED that "God" versus "No God" is a true dichotomy.

I'm done. I'm just done. This is obviously doing you no good. You don't even understand the difference between "[this] vs. the negation of [this]" and "[this] vs. [that]." You don't get it. You don't. You have proven this multiple times now in this thread. You're not "browbeating" anyone... you are listening to the broken record and hearing whatever it is you want to hear to make yourself feel better. To make yourself feel you are even in the position to "browbeat." It's hilarious is what it is. You can respond if you want, but don't expect anything back from me. There is no point.

BilliardsBall said:

You foolishly wrote some things no university, secular or religious, teaches:

Well the creation didn't happened in 7 days. There was no water at the creation of the universe. Light and darkness do not precede the stars. Plants aren't more ancient than animals, etc.

You seem blithely unaware of all scientific consensus and partial scientific consensus on the above. For example:

"Plants aren't more ancient than animals"

Would a billion years of evolution be helpful to your understanding here?

Click to expand...

Can you be more explicit. I don't understand what you disagree with and how you support your position.

For example, the scientific consensus makes it that the first plant to appear, appeared around 470 million years ago and was some sort aquatic moss. The first animal appeared around 800 million years ago. Of course, both plants and animals evolved from bacterias which were abundant and pretty much the eldest form of complexe life. Thus, it's accurate to say that the first animals appeared before the first plants. If my memory is correct, in Genesis, the plants are created a day prior to animals (all of which are created in a single day via a magical process which doesn't match any evidence at all of course, but that's another problem).

Pudding said:

Those false religions will:

• making a lot of bold empty claims, unverifiable claims

• writing a lot of ambiguous/self-fulfill prophecies

• if any of their bold empty claims or prophecies turns out to be true, hooray! That's the evidence that they're true religions, their Gods are true Gods

• if any of their bold empty claims or prophecies turns out to be false, then making a lot of excuses e.g. it's an inaccurate translation, some of those holy books' passages doesn't say what it say, and/or they're metaphor and not meant to be read literally. Doing whatever they can to twist their previous bold empty claims or prophecies, so as to look like they didn't make any false bold empty claims or prophecies

• prohibit/disencourage their members from getting higher education

• indoctrinate children/people to follow the religions

• making bold empty threat, threatening there are bad consequences for non-members after they die

• making bold empty promises, says that the religions' members will receice rewards after they die

• says that people are spiritually blind if they don't believe whatever those religions says regarding the invisible spiritual realm or their Gods

• and/or go to poor countries, if people become the religions' members, then give them food/cloth/medicine. Use material things to seduce convert people.

Click to expand...

In addition, those false religions will also:

• if the religions' founders want to promote slavery, racism, misogyny, anti-medical-service and/or any other ancient/barbaric/immoral/evil/irrational behaviours, they then write in their religions' books that their Gods order humanity to practice those behaviors and their Gods say those behaviors are good virtues.

• the religions then try to control the country's laws they reside in, so as to allow them to legally practice those ancient/barbaric/immoral/evil/irrational behaviours, and force every non-members of those religions to practice those ancient/barbaric/immoral/evil/irrational behaviours.

• if the religions' founders want to charge member fees from their religions' members, they then write in their religions' books, specify how much money and how often members need to pay, and write that their Gods order members to pay such money to the religions' founders.